Court Rulings

Special to the Chronicle by Houston-based investigative journalist Clarence Walker, cwalkerinvestigates@gmail.com. This is Part 8 in his continuing series of stories about prosecutorial misconduct and police corruption in the drug war.

In an unusual recent case, the US 4th Circuit Appeals Court overturned a conviction in a crack cocaine case despite the defendant having pleaded guilty. The case involving Baltimore drug dealer Cortez Leon Fisher was not overturned because the plea agreement was coerced or not voluntary -- the usual standard -- but because it was based on the lies of a corrupt police officer.

The case -- but not this tale -- began with an October 29, 2007 raid on Fisher's home executed by Baltimore police officer and DEA drug task force member Mark Lunsford. The search turned up crack cocaine and a loaded weapon. To avoid a decades-long stretch behind bars, Fisher copped a plea to one count of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute and one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Federal District Court Judge Frederick Motz then sentenced Fisher to 10 years in federal prison.

Lunsford's arrest and conviction uncovered a pattern of fabricating evidence to enrich police officers and selected informants, who received payments in cases in which they had not provided information. Reward money was fraudulently awarded to undeserving informants, and the proceeds were split between Lunsford and the snitches.

A search of Lunsford's home turned up jewelry belonging to alleged drug dealers and $46,000 in cash stolen from them. Federal prosecutors made no effort to return the stolen money to its rightful owners, but instead seized it for their own coffers.

But it gets worse. Lunsford also had a long history with Fisher and some of his family members, whom he had previously arrested on drug charges, some of which had been dismissed. In this light, Lunsford's pursuit of Fisher takes on the appearance of a personal vendetta.

When Fisher discovered that Lunsford had been indicted for perjury and theft in 2009, he wrote a pro se appeal to the judge who sentenced him, requesting that his guilty plea be vacated. But Judge Motz demurred.

Judge Fredrik Motz

"Unquestionably if the defendant had known of Lunsford's misconduct he would have filed a motion to suppress, and the motion may well have been successful," Motz wrote in denying the appeal. Nevertheless, "the defendant does not deny he was in possession of a firearm (as he admitted under oath during his Rule 11).Under these circumstances, I cannot find that a failure to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea would result in a 'miscarriage of justice.'"

Fisher appealed that decision to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In his appeal, Fisher wrote that Lunsford "set me up and arrested me unlawfully." The informant in the case, Fisher said in the appeal, "never gave Lunsford information concerning drug activities at Fisher's home." Citing prior arrests of Fisher by Lunsford years ago, the appeal went on to say that after Lunsford arrested Fisher in 2007 in the current case, "the officer returned to my apartment later, stole a safe containing all my jewelry specifically numerous diamonds with blue and red design, including a diamond watch."

The 4th Circuit overturned the trial judge. The key question for the court was whether a police officer's misrepresentations of facts invalidated a guilty plea under the due process clause. The court noted that in order to invalidate a plea, the defendant must show that egregious impermissible conduct preceded the entry of the plea and that the misconduct influenced the defendant's decision to plead guilty.

While one member of the three-judge panel voted to dismiss Fisher's appeal, arguing that "natural reaction of extreme distaste to Lunsford's criminal act does not instantaneously transform Fisher's guilty plea into some form of due process violation that permits him now to withdraw his plea," his was a dissenting opinion.

Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd disagreed. Lunsford's lies influenced Fisher to cop a plea and his perjury "undermined the entire proceedings, thus rendering the defendant's pleas involuntary, and violated his due process rights," they wrote. "A plea based on law enforcement fraud is invalid even if the person is guilty," the court held in its ruling in the case.

Cortez Fisher is still behind bars, waiting to see if the US Attorney's Office in Maryland will dismiss his case. Meanwhile, Lunford, the dirty cop, has already been released from prison, as have other defendants caught up in Lunsford's perjury and bogus search warrants.

Fisher was scheduled to appear in court on October 25th to resolve the matter, but a court clerk told the Chronicle a new date has not been announced yet. Fisher's attorney, Marta Khan, did not respond to phone and email messages seeking comment about the matter.

"I was supposed to be home like the other people that they let go behind Lunsford's lies but I believe the feds will try to recharge me," Fisher told the Chronicle in a letter from prison."But I am ready for a new trial since I have all this new evidence."

Cop v. Drug Dealer

Baltimore police officer Mark Lunsford despised drug dealer Cortez Fisher. Their adversarial history stretches years to when Lunsford rode patrol near Baltimore's notorious Murphy Homes Project, where Fisher and his brother called "Midget" sold drugs, according to court documents.

Between 1993 and 2004, Lunsford's aggressive efforts to rid the crime-ridden community of drug dealers helped fellow narcotics officers make some of the cases against Fisher, including one particular case in 1999 when Fisher faced charges for armed marijuana trafficking.

In 2001, Fisher picked up another drug case, but was never convicted. Doggedly pursuing Fisher, Lunsford finally nailed him in 2004 on drug trafficking and a weapons charge filed in federal court. Fisher immediately copped a plea to serve 36 months in prison.

After finishing serving the 36 months, Fisher got nailed again on drug charges by Lunsford, this time costing him another 12 months behind bars. But Lunsford wasn't through yet.

In a search warrant affidavit dated October 29, 2007, Lunsford wrote that he received reliable information from a snitch that Fisher was selling drugs out of his house. Then, based on that false report, Lunsford claimed he personally saw Fisher sell drugs from his car. It was all a lie.

Court records filed in Fisher's case include a redacted FBI document dated October 23, 2009, where Lunsford admits that he fabricated source information in Fisher's and numerous other narcotics cases that sent citizens to prison. Lunsford told FBI agent that, fully aware of Fisher's involvement in the drug trade, he had lied when he said the informant he had named in the affidavit was the source of his information about Fisher.

Fisher may well have had a career as a drug dealer, but as the 4th Circuit noted, "even the guilty can suffer a miscarriage of justice."

Cortez Fisher remains imprisoned as he awaits word on what prosecutors will do. In the worst case, he will stay there until 2017. Meanwhile, the crooked cop whose perjurious information led to Fisher's arrest and subsequent plea bargain is a free man, not on parole, and not in the clutches of the criminal justice system.

For the guy from the mean streets of Baltimore, there is nothing left to do except to start over -- again.

An LA dispensary crackdown gets underway, an Arizona judge throws out a restrictive dispensary ordinance, the Michigan Supreme Court hears a dispensary ban case, and much, much more. Let's get to it:

Arizona

On Monday, a Superior Court judge overturned Maricopa County's restrictive dispensary ordinance, ruling that it was a "transparent attempt" to bar the businesses from unincorporated areas of the county. The judge granted a pretrial verdict in favor of White Mountain Health Center, which seeks to open a dispensary in Sun City. While the county has the power to zone to protect public health, safety, and welfare, it cannot categorically deny permits to dispensaries, he ruled.

California

Last Tuesday, Berkeley police and city inspectors raided the Forty Acres collective to look for code violations. The raid came two weeks after Forty Acres filed a lawsuit against the city and its Medical Cannabis Commission in a longstanding dispute over the dispensary's efforts to ensure its legality. The suit charges the city with discrimination and denial of due process. City officials, who have been trying to shut the place down since December 2011, maintain that it is a collective operating in a commercial district, which violates the city's zoning laws. Collectives are supposed to operate in residential areas and be "incidental" to the rest of the house.

Last Friday, Los Angeles officials said 38 dispensaries are being prosecuted and another 40 have shut down voluntarily after receiving warnings to close their doors. This is the beginning of the city's effort to enforce Measure D, a May ballot initiative that capped the number of dispensaries at 135. There are an estimated 800 to 1,000 dispensaries in the city. About 800 received letters warning them they aren't legal. Some of them have joined together to challenge the law in court.

On Tuesday, the Fairfield Plan and Zoning Commission voted to deny two dispensary applications. The unanimous vote came after two public hearings. The commission said it denied the application not out of opposition to medical marijuana, but because the town did not have regulations in place. Some commissioners said they needed to move forward with regulations, and that the state needed to get more deeply involved.

Massachusetts

On Tuesday, the town of Saugus approved a moratorium on dispensaries. The moratorium will be in place at least until next September. The town maintains that the moratorium will allow town boards, committees and officials an extended period of time to study the possible legal, land use, public safety and public health impact of a local dispensary on the town and make recommendations for Town Meeting approval.

Last Wednesday, medical marijuana supporters picketed the Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center in Corvallis. Patients and supports complained that they are getting unfair treatment from the hospital's parent company, Samaritan Health Services, the largest health care provider in the mid-Willamette River Valley. Patients were especially incensed over efforts to force them to choose between opioid pain medications and medical marijuana.

Late last month, the city of Medford began revoking business licenses for dispensaries. The city says the businesses do not comply with federal law, even though the Oregon legislature this year passed a dispensary bill and the federal government has signaled a largely hands-off approach. The move came after the city council unanimously approved and expanded an ordinance that had previously only said businesses had to be conducted in a lawful manner. Patients and supporters are mobilizing.

The feds back off in some Southern California asset forfeiture cases, an Iowa newspaper tells local authorities to back off from prosecuting a cancer patient, and several states move forward with implementing their medical marijuana laws. And more. Let's get to it:

Arizona

Last Thursday, Navajo County sheriff's deputies raided a dispensary in Pinetop. They hit the Beyond Compassion dispensary, owned by Mike Lytle. Lytle also owned the Mountain Meds dispensary in Lakeside that was raided earlier this year. He was charged with five drug-related felonies in that case, which is still pending. He racked up two more felony possession of marijuana for sale charges Thursday.

On Tuesday, federal prosecutors dropped their case against an Anaheim landlord whose property they tried to seize over a $37 medical marijuana sale. Under federal pressure, Tony Jalali had already evicted a dispensary he had rented to when the feds brought their asset forfeiture action. Prosecutors had been seeking to drop the case for months, but had insisted that he agree to surprise inspections and promise never to rent to another dispensary. They didn't get that, but Jalali did agree not to demand that the US government pay his attorney fees. The feds dropped the case with prejudice, meaning they cannot threaten to seize his property again. They also dropped two other asset forfeiture cases, but those agreements have been finalized with the courts.

Last Thursday, a Riverside County dispensary sued the city of Murrieta over its decision to ban dispensaries and medical marijuana delivery services. Compassionate Care Beneficiaries seeks a peremptory writ of mandate to set aside the city's decision. It alleges that Murrieta violated state environmental laws by failing to evaluate the potential air pollution and traffic impacts of barring dispensaries and forcing residents who use marijuana legally for medicinal purposes to drive miles farther to obtain it.

On Tuesday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors moved closer to new medical marijuana regulations. The board is considering rules that would prohibit dispensaries within 600 feet of schools or each other, restricts hours and signage, and could require background checks of dispensary managers or dispensary board members. They would also limit home grows to 100 square feet indoors and 1,000 square feet outdoors. The ordinance will have a final vote on October 22.

On Sunday, the Quad-City Times editorialized against prosecuting a cancer patient for growing medical marijuana. The newspaper accused the Scott County justice system of enforcing "the letter of a law that is doing much more harm than good" in the case of Benton Mackenzie, who was arrested along with his wife, son, and parents for growing marijuana he used to alleviate his cancer treatments. Mackenzie was jailed for two months until authorities realized they might be stuck with his medical bills, and is now free awaiting trial. "Iowa is overdue for marijuana law reform in response to growing clinical evidence of its medicinal value," the paper concluded. "Iowa and Illinois are overdue for decriminalizing a substance readily available despite decades of targeted enforcement." The Quad Cities are a trans-Mississippi River metropolitan area consisting of Davenport and Bettendorf, Iowa, and Moline and Rock Island, Illinois (and East Moline, too).

Kansas

Last Friday, the Kansas Silver-Haired Legislature endorsed medical marijuana. The group focuses on legislation affecting Kansas senior citizens and said in a resolution that medical marijuana brings relief for numerous conditions "often found among senior citizens" as well as slowing the progress of two conditions common to senior citizens -- Alzheimer's Disease and glaucoma. Medical marijuana has gained virtually no traction in the Republican-dominated state legislature.

On Friday, state officials released their 80-page draft medical marijuana dispensary regulations. The move comes after the legislature this year passed a dispensary bill, which is set to go into effect in April. The state Division of Public and Behavioral Health released the draft, which sets broad guidelines for growers, dispensaries and test labs. The draft has already excited numerous concerns and comments, and is subject to revision.

New Jersey

Last Friday, a second dispensary won approval to start selling marijuana to patients. The Health Department announced that the Compassionate Care Foundation in Egg Harbor Township can open for business. It has been growing marijuana since June, but has not announced an exact opening date. The state has authorized six dispensaries, but so far, only one has opened.

On Sunday, a medical marijuana farmers' market reopened in Seattle. While providing candies, lotions, and dried buds to patients, the market is also part of an ongoing fight by the state's patients and medical marijuana industry to ensure that their rights are kept in mind as the state moves toward legally regulated marijuana for all adults.

Wisconsin

Last Thursday, two Democratic legislators announced they would file a medical marijuana bill in the state legislature. Rep. Chris Taylor of Madison and Sen. Jon Erpenbach of Middleton held a news conference Thursday to announce a new bill, saying marijuana can provide pain relief other medication doesn't. A similar measure in 2010 got a hearing, but went nowhere after that under Democratic leadership. In 2011, a similar bill got nowhere at all under a Republican-controlled legislature. The Republicans still control both houses.

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear an appeal from medical marijuana advocacy groups who had challenged the DEA's decision to maintain marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for the most dangerous substances.

The court denied in summary order a petition for a writ of certiorari from the groups, led by Americans for Safe Access, which had sought Supreme Court review of a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the DEA's ruling that a change in marijuana's classification required the Food and Drug Administration's recognition of acceptable medical uses for the drugs.

Advocates of rescheduling marijuana have been trying to do so for more than four decades, but have been thwarted by DEA delays and intransigence. This was the third formal rescheduling effort to be blocked by DEA decision making.

Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no acceptable medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Other Schedule I drugs include LSD, MDMA, and heroin. Despite the fact that there is an ever-increasing mountain of research detailing marijuana medicinal effects and despite the fact that 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA continues to insist that it cannot be down-scheduled.

Joe Elford, lead attorney on the case for Americans for Safe Access, told Law360 that the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was in line with its reluctance to overturn lower court and administrative decisions on medical marijuana.

"It's disappointing, but not altogether surprising," he said.

A fourth effort to reclassify marijuana led by the governors of the medical marijuana states of Rhode Island and Washington was filed in 2011 and is still awaiting action.

California localities continue to grapple with medical marijuana issues; meanwhile, officials in three states are moving forward with implementing medical marijuana laws, and a key Kentucky politician says nice things about it. Let's get to it:

Last Wednesday, Sutter County supervisors passed the first reading of a cultivation ordinance that would prohibit marijuana cultivation within 2,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and child-care centers and establish setback requirements from property lines for crops to mitigate the plant's odor. The vote came after several residents complained that an increase in grow operations have caused crime to increase and lessened their quality of life. The ordinance must have another vote at the October 21 supervisors' meeting before it becomes final.

Last Thursday, the Eureka city council canceled a meeting where a move to ban dispensaries was to be considered. The proposed amendment to the city's medical marijuana ordinance would have banned dispensaries, cooperatives, collectives, and mobile delivery services. The city currently has four dispensaries and a moratorium on new ones, but that moratorium is set to expire November 3. City officials said they postponed the meeting because of time pressure, but will now deal with the issue at their October 15 meeting.

Also last Thursday, the Clearlake city council moved forward with approving the final reading of a cultivation ordinance. The ordinance, which is modeled on the cultivation ordinance adopted by the Lake County Board of Supervisors, prohibits commercial grows, grows on vacant lots and puts limitations on the number of plants allowed. With Thursday's approval, the ordinance is to become effective January 1, 2014. It also prohibits cultivation within 600 feet of a school or licensed child day care center. The number of plants allowed is connected to parcel size, allowing no more than six plants on parcels smaller than a half acre and as many as 48 plants on properties 40 acres or larger.

Last Friday, the city of San Diego sued a dispensary to force it to shut down. Targeted is the Central Wellness Collective in mid-city. The move marks a change in policy since the forced resignation of Mayor Bob Filner, who had called on the city attorney to stop suing dispensaries. Acting Mayor Todd Gloria feels otherwise. He told the city's chief operating officer and assistant chief operating officer that enforcement of zoning violations by pot shops could resume. A new marijuana zoning ordinance, more restrictive than the one sponsored by Filner, is being vetted by neighborhood groups. The proposal should be ready for council consideration by January, a spokeswoman for Gloria said.

Delaware

On Tuesday, the Division of Public Health published preliminary regulations for the state's medical marijuana program. Implementation of the state's 2011 law had been delayed by federal government threats, but last month, Gov. Jack Markell (D) lifted his suspension of the dispensary program. The new regulations cover the bidding identification process and operation for the compassion center as well as the safety and security conditions. The state will then take bids for a pilot dispensary and begin evaluating the bids by March 2014.

Illinois

On Tuesday, state officials met to begin drafting rules for medical marijuana distribution. Representatives of Gov. Pat Quinn (D) met with officials from three agencies. The state Department of Health is examining how to issue identification cards for medical marijuana users. The Department of Agriculture is determining the standards for growers. And the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is examining how to regulate the 60 dispensaries that will distribute the medical marijuana. The agencies hope to present a final version of the rules to lawmakers in the spring. The state's medical marijuana law was signed last month.

Kentucky

Last Wednesday, House Speaker Greg Stumbo said he is leaning toward supporting medical marijuana and that the topic is worth debating. Medical marijuana bills have been filed in previous years, but have never gone anywhere without the support of leadership. Stumbo raised the issue after Attorney General Jack Conway sent an advisory letter to Governor Steve Beshear, Agriculture Commissioner James Comer and other state leaders to clarify current law related to marijuana's cousin, hemp. State lawmakers approved a hemp bill earlier this year.

New Hampshire

Last Thursday, the state's therapeutic cannabis advisory council held its first meeting, choosing Rep. Jim McKay as its leader, at its first meeting Thursday. Among other things, the council will try to gauge the effectiveness of the state's dispensaries. The state's new law allows up to four dispensaries. The council has until next July to come up with rules for patient identification and registry cards. The council doesn't expect dispensaries to actually open until 2015.

Oregon begins moving toward a regulated dispensary system, Massachusetts advances down the dispensary path, New Jersey's governor signs a medical marijuana bill, and much, much more. Let's get to it:

Arizona

Last Tuesday, the Cochise County Planning Commission voted to approve a medical marijuana farm. By a 5-3 vote, the commission gave the go-ahead for a company to cultivate the crop in part of a Willcox greenhouse. It is an almost eight-acre greenhouse superstructure built in the 1990s. Right now it grows mostly tomatoes and other vegetables, but Westedge LLC wants to use 85,000 square feet of the building to grow medical marijuana. Cochise County officials said if no one appeals this decision within a week, it will go through. Otherwise it will be up to the county board of supervisors to make a decision.

California

Last Tuesday, the Berkeley city council postponed approval of a fourth dispensary and a ranking system to select it. Instead, it asked the city's Medical Cannabis Commission to refine proposed regulations concerning cannabis collectives. The council wants the panel to examine limiting the size of collectives in Berkeley, changing their closing time, and requiring them to apply for a permit that would allow the city to track them. Current law allows groups of people to operate cannabis collectives in residential areas as long as the use is "incidental." In the last few years, however, at least three collectives have opened in commercial districts and operated almost like dispensaries, selling cannabis to hundreds or thousands of members. Berkeley has shut down two of those collectives, Perfect Plants Patients Group and Greenleaf, for violating city zoning ordinances. The city is trying to shutter 40 Acres on San Pablo Avenue as well.

Last Friday, a Kern County judge upheld the county's medical marijuana ordinance, but said the county has 30 days to come up with a plan to make the ordinance, Measure G, comply with state environmental laws. If the county fails to come up a review plan acceptable to the court, Measure G could be invalidated and tossed out. A group of county medical marijuana shops and patients sued Kern County after voters approved Measure G in June, 2012. The measure required medical marijuana collectives to be located only on industrial land along with a host of other restrictions. The shops had to be at least one mile away from schools, day care centers, public parks, churches or other marijuana dispensaries.

On Tuesday, Fresno County supervisors gave first approval to a tougher grow ordinance. On a 5-0 vote, the supes approved the ordinance, under which those involved in marijuana grows in excess of 12 plants could be charged with a misdemeanor, which can include up to six months in a jail and a fine of up to $1,000. In addition, violations can be deemed a public nuisance, and the Sheriff's Office or other county official such as the health officer can ask the Board of Supervisors to okay an additional fine of up to $1,000 for every plant in excess of 12. The ordinance will get a final vote next month.

Also on Tuesday, Santa Cruz County supervisors gave preliminary approval to a new medical marijuana ordinance that would bar any new dispensaries from opening, limit the time of operation and location of existing dispensaries, and require outdoor grows to comply with environmental laws. The new rules prohibit dispensaries within 600 feet of schools or each other, and could ban them near parks that have playground equipment. They restrict hours and signage, and are likely to require background checks of either managers or a dispensary's board members. They also restrict home marijuana grows to 100 square feet indoors, and limits new outdoor grows to 1,000 square feet. Existing grows would have to comply with stringent environmental laws. The ordinance could still be modified before a final October 22 vote. If approved, it would go into effect in November.

Maine

On Tuesday, the State Housing Authority put off a decision on whether to revoke subsidies for medical marijuana users. The question is whether to allow medical marijuana users who receive housing vouchers from MaineHousing to use or grow marijuana in their homes. The board voted in August 2012 to terminate vouchers for medical marijuana users, but then instituted two consecutive six-month moratoriums after protests from medical marijuana advocates. The second of those moratoriums would have expired next month if the board hadn't extended it for another year on Tuesday. The authority cited lack of clear federal guidance for the delay. Of 3,800 Mainers receiving vouchers through the program, 14 are registered medical marijuana patients.

Massachusetts

On Tuesday, the Braintree town council approved a moratorium on dispensaries. It joins more than a hundred other Massachusetts communities that have moved to ban or restrict dispensaries before the state's medical marijuana regulation process even allows them to open. Braintree councilors said it was a temporary measure "to slow things down."

Last Wednesday, a three-judge panel held a hearing on a lawsuit charging that the Christie administration had sabotaged the state's medical marijuana program with delays and missed reports. Superior Court Judge Marie Lihotz said the lawsuit presented "an interesting, novel issue," but rejected an allegation that state officials were dragging their feet intentionally as "innuendo" and said the court may not be able to consider those claims. Plaintiffs in the case asked the court to order state officials to expedite procedures, but the court made no ruling.

A US district court judge in Missouri ruled Friday that a technical college violated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures when it ordered all students to submit to mandatory, suspicionless drug tests. The judge did allow the drug testing of students in a small number of programs where school officials could make a reasonable argument that public safety was at stake.

The ruling by Judge Nanette Laughrey in Jefferson City came in Barrett v. Claycomb, a case filed by Linn State Technical College students against the college and its president, Donald Claycomb, after the college announced in 2011 it would require all incoming students to undergo drug testing.

Federal courts have traditionally held that drug testing by government entities without particularized suspicion that an individual is using drugs is unconstitutional. The federal courts have upheld only limited exceptions -- for minor school students, for certain law enforcement personnel, and for public safety -- but Linn State had argued that its policy was constitutional because some of its students were training in professions with public safety implications.

But citing the school's own admission that there had never been a drug-related accident in the 50-year history of the campus and closely reading previous federal court decisions on the public safety exception, Judge Laughery found that in only three academic programs of the 28 offered by the school was there a sufficient public safety interest that would allow suspicionless drug testing.

The judge issued a permanent injunction barring Linn State from conducting suspicionless drug tests of students except in those three programs. She also ordered the school to destroy all existing urine samples from students who are not in those programs and to refund the $50 drug test cost to all those students.

The students in the case were represented by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, which challenged the drug testing policy in a 2011 lawsuit.

"Like most Americans, Missourians are tired of the War on Drugs and policies that assume that everyone is guilty of illegal drug use," said ACLU of Eastern Missouri executive director Jeffrey Mittman. "The court recognized that illusory safety concerns can be used 'to mask unconstitutional purposes.'"

"Forcing students to provide urine samples violates their constitutional rights," said Tony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU-EM. "To make matters worse, students had to pay the college $50 each for the tests that violated their privacy."

Comments in the Senate Judiciary Committee provided hope that medical marijuana's banking problems may be ending, California communities continue to tussle over the issue, and a New Jersey bill is signed into law. There's more, too. Let's get to it:

National

On Tuesday, a hint came that banking issues for dispensaries may soon be resolved. Deputy Attorney General James Cole told the Senate Judiciary Committee the Justice and Treasury Departments and banking regulators were working "to deal with this in accordance with the laws on the books." Cole's comments came after several senators prodded him on the issue. [Ed: If Treasury is involved, could that mean they'll deal with the IRS dispensary audit issue too? That would be huge -- arguably the audits are the biggest threat facing the medical marijuana industry, and they could just as easily hit the legalized marijuana industry too. - DB]

California

Last Thursday, the Napa Planning Commission canceled a meeting to begin the process of repealing the city's medical marijuana ordinance. The city said it needed more time to consider the implications of a federal memorandum regarding marijuana enforcement that was issued last week by the US Justice Department. Late last month, the city council had voted to effectively ban dispensaries, but now wants to rethink. The council had opted to repeal its existing ordinance that would have allowed a dispensary. Repeal of the ordinance would effectively ban dispensaries in the city because current zoning does not permit such activity.

Last Friday, a statewide dispensary regulation bill rose from the dead. The bill, AB 604, sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) was killed earlier in the year, but Ammiano reintroduced it using the "gut and amend" process to dump it into an existing measure. The effort took on added urgency after the federal government late last month unveiled its latest approach to medical marijuana and legal marijuana states. A backup bill, SB 69, was introduced the following day. Only one of them needs to pass. The legislative session ends at the end of this week.

On Monday, a judge blocked a request for an injunction to force Long Beach to count all signatures submitted by organizers of an initiative to overturn the city's dispensary ban. The Long Beach Citizens' and Patients' Rights political action committee filed petitions with 43,159 signatures in February to place an initiative on a special election ballot similar to the medical marijuana regulations the City Council passed in 2010. However, City Clerk Larry Herrera conducted a random sample of 3 percent of the signatures and found only 31,294 signatures were valid, short of the 15 percent, or 33,543 registered voters required for a special election. The political action committee then sued. But federal District Court Judge Audrey Collins ruled that Herrera "acted reasonably rather than arbitrarily or fraudulently."

On Tuesday, the Long Beach city council agreed to draft a new dispensary ordinance. In an 8-0 vote, council members directed the city attorney to draft an ordinance that would once again allow a limited number of collectives to operate within city limits. The council debate came a day after a group seeking to overturn the city's medical marijuana ban was dealt a blow in court. A federal judge ruled officials would not have to place a medical marijuana initiative on the city's April ballot, or do a full count of more than 43,000 signatures seeking a special election.

Also on Tuesday, Merced County supervisors approved an ordinance to limit medical marijuana grows. The ordinance limits medical marijuana cultivation to 12 plants per parcel of land, regardless of the property's size, whether it's an indoor or outdoor garden, or the maturity of the plants. Despite strong support from law enforcement and elected officials, a few medical pot users on Tuesday said the ordinance unfairly groups them with people who grow marijuana for profit. The ordinance would carry stiffer civil and criminal penalties, including abatement and cleanup at the owner's expense, an administrative procedure resulting in penalties or a misdemeanor charge resulting in six months in jail and-or a $1,000 fine.

Last Wednesday, medical marijuana supporters rallied in Lansing, saying police are violating state law by punishing medical marijuana users. The rally featured live entertainment and showcased people who said they had been victimized by police.

On Monday, changes to the state's medical marijuana rules passed the Assembly. The changes were demanded by Gov. Chris Christie (R) when he issued a conditional veto on a bill that would have allowed qualified children to use medical marijuana. Christie demanded that the bill be revised to require that only minors can use "edibles" and that they would have to be approved by both a psychiatrist and a physician. The bill also removes the limit on the marijuana strains that may be cultivated and requires parental permission, according to the release.

On Monday, the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association released a new position statement on medical marijuana. "It is the position of PSNA that medical marijuana is worthy of further rigorous clinical testing," the statement said. "In order to weigh the true risks and benefits of medical marijuana, there must be a discussion and openness at the federal level regarding the conversion of marijuana from a Schedule I to Schedule II drug classification. Schedule II classification would allow testing of consistent grade medical marijuana in a randomized controlled fashion in order to ascertain the drug's risk/benefit profile for a multitude of illnesses and symptoms. In addition, PSNA supports protection from prosecution for patients who currently use medicinal marijuana or for providers suggesting medicinal marijuana for relief of intractable conditions or symptoms. Lastly, PSNA shares concerns about the delivery system of smoking medication and, if this drug is approved, encourages the development of a more efficient drug delivery system." A bill to legalize medical marijuana in the state has been pending since 2009.

Washington

On Monday, officials suggested the state's dispensaries are criminal enterprises. The medical marijuana law was never intended to allow businesses to sell marijuana to patients, a task force of state officials told a legislative committee. The task force could come up with recommendations for shutting down dispensaries by January. Alternatively, the legislature could act to regulate dispensaries.

A federal judge Tuesday awarded $3 million to the family of an 18-year-old Los Angeles honors student who was gunned down by undercover DEA agents in a parking garage in 2010. But the judge also ruled the officers were not negligent in their actions.

Zachary Champommier (justiceforazac.blogspot.com)

Zachary Champommier died when he drove into a Studio City shopping center parking lot to meet a friend. Also in the parking lot were a group of undercover officers, including DEA agents and LA County sheriff's deputies and LAPD officers who had been deputized by the DEA.

The cops were discussing a search warrant they had just served when they observed Champommier's friend walking in the parking garage. Suspecting the friend was breaking into cars, they detained him. When Champommier drove up, he saw his friend being accosted by people he didn't know and attempted to drive away from possible trouble.

Officers claimed that Champommier's vehicle struck a deputy as he attempted to leave the scene. Officers opened fire, killing the 18-year-old honor student and "band geek."

Both the DEA and the LA County Sheriff's Department said the shooting was justifiable because Champommier had tried to run down an officer.

"The nature of [Champommier's] aggressive actions, actually hitting the deputy -- that is not someone who is without some degree of fault," Sheriff Lee Baca said shortly after the shooting.

Champommier's mother, Carol, filed a wrongful death lawsuit, charging that federal and local drug enforcement officers were reckless in shooting at her son, who she claimed posed no reasonable threat.

US District Court Judge Michael Fitzgerald ruled that the DEA agents did have reason to believe they were in danger, but acted recklessly in shooting at Champommier's vehicle as it passed them because at that point they were no longer in danger.

A federal judge Monday found that the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk search tactics violated the constitutional rights of racial minorities in the city and ordered a federal monitor to oversee broad reforms in the department. Federal District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin did not find stop-and-frisks unconstitutional in themselves, but ruled that NYPD's policy on them amounted to "indirect racial profiling."

NYPD practices stop-and-frisk techniques (nyc.gov/nypd)

The ruling came in Floyd v. the City of New York, in which plaintiffs represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights challenged the massive program, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of street searches each year (4.43 million between 2004 and 2012, according to trial evidence), the vast majority aimed at young black and brown people, and the vast majority of which resulted in no findings of drugs or weapons.

The stop-and-frisk program did, however, contribute to the arrest and temporary jailing of tens of thousands of New Yorkers caught with small amounts of marijuana. Possession of small amounts was decriminalized in New York in 1978, but the NYPD effectively invalidated decriminalization by intimidating people into removing baggies of weed from their pockets and then charging them with public possession, a misdemeanor. Such tactics helped make New York City the world leader in marijuana arrests.

In her ruling Monday, Judge Scheindlin argued that the city's stop-and-frisk policies showed disregard for both the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. She said the evidence showed that police systematically stopped innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing.

Scheindlin didn't limit her criticism to the actions of police officers, but also held high NYPD and city officials responsible for what she called a "checkpoint-style" policing tactic.

"I also conclude that the city’s highest officials have turned a blind eye to the evidence that officers are conducting stops in a racially discriminatory manner," she wrote. "Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites," she noted.

While Scheindlin wrote that she was "not ordering an end to practice" of stop-and-frisk searches, she said that the racially disparate manner in which searches were carried out demanded reforms that "protect the rights and liberties of all New Yorkers, while still providing much needed police protection."

In addition to the outside monitor, Scheindlin ordered other remedies, including a pilot program in which officers in five precincts will be equipped with body-worn cameras to record street encounters and a "joint remedial process" where the public will be invited to provide input on how to reform stop-and-frisk.

While Scheindlin noted NYPD's expressed purpose in the widespread searches was to reduce the prevalence of guns on the street, she said police went too far in their zeal, stretching the bounds of the Constitution as they did so.

"The outline of a commonly carried object such as a wallet or cellphone does not justify a stop or frisk, nor does feeling such an object during a frisk justify a search,” she ruled.

And, after hearing more than two months of sometimes wrenching testimony from stop-and-frisk victims, Scheindlin deplored what she called "the human toll of unconstitutional stops," calling them "a demeaning and humiliating experience."

"No one should live in fear of being stopped whenever he leaves his home to go about the activities of daily life," she wrote. And it wasn't just fear of being stopped. Racial minorities in the city "were more likely to be subjected to the use of force than whites, despite the fact that whites are more likely to be found with weapons or contraband."

The city and the NYPD had argued that the targeting of young people of color was justified because they were more likely to commit crimes, but Scheindlin wasn't buying, especially since the searches usually came up empty.

"This might be a valid comparison if the people stopped were criminals," she wrote. "But to the contrary, nearly 90% of the people stopped are released without the officer finding any basis for a summons or arrest." The city had a "policy of targeting expressly identified racial groups for stops in general," she noted. "Targeting young black and Hispanic men for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates bedrock principles of equality," she ruled.

The ruling didn't sit well with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has defended and championed stop-and-frisk as an effective crime fighting measure. In remarks after the verdict, Bloomberg lashed out at the judge and the ruling.

"This is a very dangerous decision made by a judge who I don’t think understands how policing works," Bloomberg said."The judge clearly telegraphed her intentions, and she conveyed a disturbing disregard for the intentions of our police officers, who form the most diverse police department in the nation. We didn’t believe we got a fair trial," he complained.

“Our crime strategies and tools -- including stop, question, frisk -- have made New York the safest big city in America," Bloomberg said. "We go to where the reports of crime are," he added. "Those, unfortunately, happen to be poor neighborhoods, or minority neighborhoods.... There are always people that are afraid of police ... some of them come from cultures where police are the enemy. Here, the police department are our friends."

And the police know best, he added. "The public are not experts at policing," Bloomberg said. "Personally, I would rather have [Police Commissioner] Ray Kelly decide how to keep my family safe, rather than having somebody on the street who says, 'Oh, I don’t like this.'"

But the Center for Constitutional Rights suggested that the mayor should grow up and do what's right.

"The NYPD is finally being held to account for its longstanding illegal and discriminatory policing practices," the group said in a statement Monday. "The City must now stop denying the problem and partner with the community to create a police department that protects the safety and respects the rights of all New Yorkers."